Talk:History of computer science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, which aims to create a comprehensive computer science reference for Wikipedia. Visit the project page for more information and to join in on related discussions.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Conceptual Problems

I think there's serious conceptual confusion in this article, and it arises from the very term this article wishes to cover: computer science. A disciplinary history is confused with a conceptual history and technological history.

Strictly speaking, and contrary to what the beginning of this page suggests, the history of computer science is quite short. There was no distinct discipline computer science before the birth of the stored-program paradigm. I'd be happy to see if someone can point out a pre-1900s source for discussions of whether computer science or computing studies of any kind should form a new academic discipline. Even the early computing pioneers such as Vannevar Bush considered themselves to be engineers. Only after the birth of the stored-program paradigm emerged serious discussions about a distinct discipline of computer science.

To me it seems strange to conflate the history of computing machinery, some history of computational concepts, and some history of mathematics under the term history of computer science. Insofar as the term computer science refers to the academic discipline, then this article should be an article about the history of an academic discipline. And when we're talking about an interdisciplinary science, if we include the roots of all the constituents, we're facing a pick'n'mix collection of historical strands.

It is true that there are pre-1900s conceptual developments that have a central place in today's computer science. But it is strange to say that the history of concepts such as logarithm, numeral systems, or boolean algebra would be a part of the disciplinary history of computer science. Those things properly belong to the history of computing, but not to the history of the academic discipline computer science. I'd like to see the article on the history of computer science to not be confused with articles on the history of computing or the history of computational concepts. --Matti 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

This article is lacking a basic bibliography. It should include not only technical texts but also works from a social studies of science perspective.

06/2006

[edit] Computational performance

In the early years section, it makes more sense to emphasize how people performed computations rather than the tools in use. To emphasize the computation is computing, and to emphasize the tools, like the abacus, is some other hardware subject. To point out the abacus is okay, but to emphasize it as an early "computer science" based machine doesn't fit with computer science since it is really a memory tool (like a hardware memory device). — Dzonatas 11:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So where does it all start then? Sbwoodside 23:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The work of human computers was controlled by sophisicated systems that divided up the work among them and allowed for rigorous error checking. Does anyone know if and how the math involved in human computing influenced modern computer science? --Jonovision 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The use of the abacus is considered somewhat of a science in itself, despite it being more of a mental tool than a memory one. I have learnt to use one before and it isn't as simple as it looks. Since the abacus is also considered an early, simplistic computer (the user providing himself as the code in running it), the totality of the abacus is a computer science, albeit not clearly defined. This is to be expected of early systems when CS was not clearly defined itself. -- Evanx 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turing

Dzonatas: you wrote: Turing's preference, if it was even true, is not important to CS history, and his biography states those points, instead)

Alan Turing's homosexuality is a matter of (NPOV) fact, see the article on him. He was not only convicted of it, he freely admitted it. It's important to CS history because it contributed directly to his death, which has been featured in every history of CS that I have seen, heard at a lecture, or read. His death was important because he was young and was still making important contributions just before he died. Sbwoodside 23:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also important since some historians have pointed out that the "imitation game", on which the Turing Test is based, was popular at gay parties of his day. However, I agree that this is best left in his biography, since there's a lot of more important ground to cover in this history article. --Jonovision 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One weakness of Turing was his isolation. Without current sources to back up this claim, he was mostly seen to travel alone between home and "work." Perhaps, he was not isolated in the likeness of a hermit, but isolated in the way as in captivated by technocracy. His work that made clerks compute with ingenuity among the clerks was actually a groundshaken ingenuity itself. What is so "groundshaken" about this? Let me only hint at the fact. He devised a system where humans did not have to be conscious about what they did in a job. That job was an extension to his consciousness. He paralleled his computability with the use of humans. If you remember, that was in about a time where people were used as just objects. I have seen the worst, most eviliest, grossiest thing on the Internet (way before 1995 -- usenet), and that is the overly banned documentaries of and around the holacaust era. Power greedy governments, that included a few technocrats, obviously wanted to control "the computer." It is really a sad part of computer science that is hardly spoken about. Some group exploited Turing, and what group exactly is an enigma. He, most likely, admitted to the exploit as if was a homosexual as a chance to be free from the technocratic captive control. Those few technocrats wanted his ingenuity in exchange to give him his freedom but at socially unacceptable cost. He obviously tried to publish what was the "groundshaken" ingenuity, but power greedy technocrats put him under coercion to admit to homosexuality. I really doubt if he ever was homosexual. If he did, I am sure it was rape. His work does not show any evidence of homosexuality. The government that put such public label on him made him into a recluse. Somehow, I doubt his death was a suicide, but it could be he did so because of his guilt from his work that ensalved many innocent people. That was the dark ages of computer science, and many rather enforce the mathematics as a root to computer science to cover it up (mostly unintentionally because of lack of any knowledge of such documentaries). The science of computer science proves of the its dark ages, but it is not the proof that is important. Turing's work is important, not his so-guessed preference. It is more important that we remember the dark ages of the computer science to understand just how free we are today, and the electronic computer really helped (not all government is bad, you know!) free us. Technocracy may proceed, but not like the torture found in the dark ages of computer science. Turing died a hero with a pencil mightier than a sword. (Do not expect me to cite any sources or defend this position. As far as I care, I do not want to see those documentaries again. I was young, and it didn't really "hit" me until later in life what I saw and read. I saw many things not usually said. I saw pictures of lampshades made out of human skin. I saw pictures of humans being subjected to experiments. One experiment was to see how gernades blew-up people, that were alive. I saw pictures of pieces of little innocent babies blown-up and the results photographed in detail and explained in detail. What kind of mind wanted this done? Why was it done? You may wonder what I mean when I say I let it all fall when I ask you about this: who did this ingenuity?) — Dzonatas 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the famous scene from Apocalypse Now, in which the mad Kurtz describes the "genius" of seeing children's arms chopped off. --Jonovision 19:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read that movie is based on the documentary, "Heart of Darkness." I have yet to see either one. — Dzonatas 13:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To do

[edit] Modern computer science

Judging from the content of Philip Greenspun's list [2], it looks like the debate over the definition of CS is bound to spill over into this article. His list focuses mainly on inventions, and is more appropriate for an article on the history of computers in general. If we are going to cover the modern science of computers, we should start with people like Shannon, von Neumann, and Cook. --Jonovision 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologise that the dispute may spill over into this article since I have asked that certain amendments be taken up here instead. I would appreciate inputs from wikipedians watching this article to participate in the definition of CS as there are externalities to the effects of editing to either article. -- Evanx 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor editing suggestions

First of all, really really fantastic work on the article so far. Your work will go a long way to help clear up the mess in the main Computer Science article.

I think some clarification is needed in the way Leibniz's, Boole's, and Godel's work is connected to modern computer science. Uninitiated readers may get the idea that these mathematicians were working towards the theory of computation, when in fact the importance of their ideas was only recognized in modern times. (The article on Boole has a great description of how his work influenced Shannon, btw) --Jonovision 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I can see what you're saying ... I didn't mean to imply that these people were computer scientists... it could say that they were mathematicians whose work influenced computer science eventually. I wouldn't say anyone was a "computer scientist" until Babbage at the earliest or maybe Turing. Sbwoodside 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We could say, in short, that the discipline, not the science before, was started based on the reason to compute and that mathematics was heavily tied into the methods taught by the discipline at its start. If we seperate the timeline of the science and the timeline of the discipline, I would agree that the discipline has a strong mathematical foundation. This reflects on the reason why the importance of their ideas (Leibniz's, Boole's, and Godel's, and others) are recognized more so in modern times. One thing I have noticed that also causes confusion is the emphasis of the "electronics" involved with computer science; when, in fact, electronics are not the only way to compute or to make a computer, as Turing originally demonstrated other forms of computability. — Dzonatas 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the clarification of the relationship math has with CS and of CS's evolution/birth. Dzonatas brought up a good point about electronics. Computer engineering has more to do with that than CS, although it isn't as pronounced widespread as such. -- Evanx 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is 'difference engine' appropriate in 'Digital machinery used difference engines or relays before the invention of faster memory devices'? Surely not!!!

[edit] A question

I have a question, can anyone respond me? It is written, "the grammarian Pāṇini formulated the grammar of Sanskrit in 3959 rules ... his grammar had the computing power equivalent to a Turing machine". How can I justify that his grammar had the computing power equivalent to a Turing machine? No reference is given here. Can you kindly provide the reference or the proof of the statement? -- Sukanta